Farmed animal industries are increasingly
anxious about the growing political clout of the animal
protection community. BEEF Cow-Calf Weekly, an industry
publication, comments: “We can expect these
initiatives to emerge at a more rapid pace…If
[animal protection advocates] pick each state off
one by one, step by step, they will have won…because
of a vastly superior implementation of tactics and
strategy”: http://tinyurl.com/ygwb2z The Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS) represents ten
million Americans, reports the Wall Street Journal.
That’s more than twice the membership of the
National Rifle Association, which is considered one
of the most effective single-issue campaign organizations.
Two entities created within the last two years by
HSUS to focus on congressional elections and ballot
initiatives have done so to the tune of $3.4 million.
See also: http://tinyurl.com/y6az76

“In the wake of Election 2006,
plenty of industry observers are questioning whether
initiatives such as Prop 204 are part of a hidden
agenda by animal activists to curtail the raising
of livestock for food. The answer is no, absolutely
not,” states Dan Murphy in his industry-oriented
column for MeatingPlace.com “The debate cannot
be conducted on their terms,” he writes, “The
bottom line is that the debate cannot be about humane
treatment of livestock.” He suggests softening
the terms used to refer to confinement systems, and
advises: “To be effective in selling a more
enlightened stance to today's consumers, industry
must first make sure real improvements are in place.”
Relatedly, in her Industry Insight column, Pork magazine
editor Marlys Miller writes: “…what cannot
be lost in all of this is that consumers want and
expect animals raised for food to be handled in a
“responsible” manner. Those consumers
will define what is responsible”: http://tinyurl.com/ydhn3n.
Meantime, World Poultry magazine acknowledges: “…some
farming practices are undesirable from an ethical
or moral standpoint…Producers of poultry and
eggs must eliminate obviously unacceptable practices
such as inducing molt by starvation, ultra-high stocking
density, handling practices which induce injury and
slaughter methods which are inhumane”: http://tinyurl.com/yhbsh6

Time magazine explains: “Although Americans
eat more chicken and beef than pork, activists are
focusing on ballot initiatives on pigs in part because
they are known as intelligent animals. Also, making
pregnant sows more comfortable would have less effect
on the price of meat than would reforms of chicken-
and beef-raising practices.”

With six (out of 435) members present,
the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA, see: http://www.farmedanimal.net/faw/faw6-39.htm#1) with an unrecorded voice vote on
Nov. 13th using a “suspension” procedure
usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation.
The bill pertains to “animal enterprises”
- any business involving animals, including manufacturers,
distributors, and sellers of animals or animal products.
It also shields third-party entities that do business
with them from targeting by activists. "Tertiary
targeting," explains Nick Cooney, with the group
Hugs for Puppies, has "allowed small, grassroots
organizations to wield a lot of power, even though
they don't have millions of dollars and thousands
of members."

While "lawful economic disruption” is
exempt, critics point out that, due to the broad language,
those who engage in undercover investigations, whistle-blowing
and many types of nonviolent civil disobedience, including
trespassing or freeing captive animals, could be labeled
"terrorists" and imprisoned. Even perceived
threats may be actionable. Punishments include up
to a year in jail for economic damages of less than
$10,000, and up to five years in prison if a threat
produced a "reasonable fear" of bodily harm.

The AETA, which amends the Animal Enterprise Protection
Act of 1992, is opposed by the National Lawyer's Guild
(NLG), in part, because laws already exist against
such acts as assault, property damage and trespassing
(including the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act of 2002). Specifically targeting animal
protection activists with special legislation and
penalties "sets a dangerous precedent for going
after people based on the content of their speech"
said an NLG spokesperson. The organization has announced
that it will look for ways to challenge it in court.
The AETA is also listed among “legislation that
may threaten civil liberties” by the national
Bill of Rights Defense Committee: http://tinyurl.com/smrp2.
In contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
does not oppose it but instead recommended “necessary
minor changes” to the wording “to make
the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom
of speech”(PDF file: http://tinyurl.com/yfc6hl.
Per the Equal Justice Alliance, the ACLU recommendations
were not incorporated: http://tinyurl.com/yzcm5e
). This “crazy-ass
bill” next goes to President Bush to be
signed into law or vetoed.

Speaking of pigs and terror, leading
up to the vote on Proposition 204 (see item #1 above),
members of Arizona farmed animal industries who supported
it said they have been the victims of vandalism and
death threats, a claim they say they’ve reported
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). According
to Robert Shuler, an attorney representing the Arizona
Pork Council, intimidating e-mail messages were sent
to the website set up in opposition to the initiative.
“[The FBI] said this matches the pattern with
what they have seen in other states with animal rights
issues,” he said of the messages. Mr. Shuler
furthermore said that anti-204 “Hogwash”
signs were stolen from his yard, and he believe his
newspaper was urinated on by radical animal rights
supporters. The executive director of the Arizona
Cattlemen’s Association related similar versions
of the accounts. He suspects animal rights activists
of having thrown a big rock through his office window.
[Note the size of the rock on window ledge and the
distance between the bars on the window: http://tinyurl.com/yy9lsc]

Cheryl Naumann, chairperson for Arizonans
for Humane Farms (AZH), the coalition behind Proposition
204, said no one from AZH has been contacted by the
FBI about it. “If there was a legitimate concern,
we would have been contacted,” said Ms. Naumann,
“The fact that we haven’t is very telling
of the validity of this claim.” Naumann, who
is also CEO of the Arizona Humane Society, and a self-described
conservative Republican from a Texas ranching family,
rejects the accusations of threats and vandalism.
Citing the popularity of the initiative, she said
the claims of intimidation and attempts to link the
initiative’s supporters to extremist animal
rights groups are made out of desperation. Naumann
claims police have been contacted with the license
plate number of an individual who attended an AZH
meeting under false pretenses and absconded with 40
pro-204 signs.

“Animal Welfare Approved”
(AWA) is a new welfare standards program just announced
by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), an organization
which for much of its 55-year history has focused
on farmed animal issues. The AWA label is the only
such seal to guarantee that the farms from which the
products come do not also have animals in conventional
systems. "In a practice we call 'double standard
certification,' some outfits label products 'humane'
for their adherence to certain standards while permitting
the bulk of animals to be raised using cruel industrial
practices,” explains AWI president Cathy Liss,
“In so doing, the agribusiness seeks to maximize
its profits and control the market by displacing family
farmers who raise all their animals according to a
high standard of welfare."

“At the heart of our standards is concern and
advocacy for the animals,” Liss states. The
amputation of chickens’ beaks or pigs’
tails, permitted by other labeling programs, is prohibited
under AWA standards. Instead, the program requires
enriched environments where animals can socialize
more naturally, reducing the stress that can cause
animals to harm each other. The standards are also
the first to require breeds of birds that are not
selected for rapid growth which causes them to suffer
from serious physical abnormalities.

AWI reports that more than 500 farms
comply with the AWA standards. Farms are inspected
by AWI and its agents prior to receiving permission
to use the seal and after they have been endorsed.
The standards, drafted with the input of scientists,
veterinarians and farmers, can be viewed at: http://www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org
Along with other information, the site includes a
comparison of the leading welfare standards.

OTHER
Whole Foods Market Inc. will introduce its own standards
next year. It has spent the last three years developing
what they say are very specific ones. The company
is, in fact, finding it difficult to find farms that
meet the [“Animal Compassionate”] standards,
and employees are now training farmers on how to do
so. Auditors will certify that farmers and suppliers
do meet them. Both the Animal Welfare Institute and
The Humane Society of the United States say the company’s
standards will significantly boost the move toward
treating farmed animals better due to Whole Foods’s
trendsetting status in the grocery industry.

In “The Checkout” section,
the Washington Post’s Annys Shin takes a look
at the meaning of various animal product labels (“Compassionate
but Confusing Labels”): http://tinyurl.com/yzkt6u